It is not only large firms who enter legal disputes . In 2013 Rolex tried to block Scottish watch retailer Rox for trading under the name saying it was too similar . Men posing as wealthy London buyers visited Kyron Keogh and Grant Mitchell ’ s store , leading the businessmen to believe they were about make a healthy sale . It turned out that Rolex had paid private investigators to scope out the store in preparation for its subsequent trademark dispute , because what Rolex was actually doing was responding to ROX ’ s updated trademark which covers “ horological and chronometric instruments ; watches and clocks ; parts and fitting therefore ” and “ retail services in connection with horological and chronometric , watches and clocks ”. ROX held its former trademark since 2005 but in 2011 had it amended for the new terms .

Rolex took the case to the Intellectual Property Office , claiming that customers would confuse the two brands . This was disputed by the hearing officer who argued that the “ degree of visual similarity ” was low and it was unlikely that the average customer would mix the two up . It was also ruled that ROX had not sold any own-brand watches under its old trademark , meaning it had exceeded the five-year exemption period and did not infringe on Rolex ’ s trademark within that time .

Whether it is a trademark issue or the alleged breach of a contract , legal dramas seem to follow jewellery brands of all sizes

In some cases , companies take legal action before complaints have been officially made . In May this year , Cartier filed a pre-emptive lawsuit against Swiss watchmaker Driva SA , saying that the Swiss brand had improperly demanded Cartier drop the name of its ‘ Drive De Cartier ’ brand of watches in the European Union , Switzerland , China , Russia and Japan .

Driva SA claims that the name of Cartier ’ s collection infringed on its trademark rights . As of yet they have taken no legal action against Cartier and have only sent a letter asking the company not to use the name , but the jewellery brand is prepared nonetheless . Cartier has stated that ‘ Drive ’ has a “ completely different commercial impression and meaning ” to Driva and the adverts for their watches will “ prominently ” feature the Cartier logo .

A statement said : “ Therefore , all use of the ‘ Drive De Cartier ’ mark is tied to Cartier , making it immediately known to consumers that Cartier is the source .” It continued : “ An appreciable number of ordinarily prudent consumers are not likely to be confused as to the source or sponsorship of Cartier ’ s products .” Cartier is also seeking a permanent injunction against Driva blocking them from asserting claims or filing complaints in relation to the ‘ Drive De Cartier ’ mark .

At other times , legal battles over jewellery are not unique to brands and manufacturers as Christie ’ s auction house found . In 2011 , Christie ’ s sold the late Elizabeth Taylor ’ s ‘ Taj Mahal ’ necklace

to Daniel Peng for $ 8.8million (£ 6.8million ). Peng believed that the necklace had belonged to Emperor Shah Jahan who built the Taj Mahal but later found this was untrue , resulting in him cancelling his purchase and asking for a refund . Describing him as an “ important customer ”, Christie ’ s returned the money to Peng and asked Taylor ’ s estate for the proceeds of the sale back , which they have refused to do so far .

In May this year , Taylor ’ s estate claimed that the Christie ’ s catalogue listed the necklace simply as ‘ Indian ’ but blamed representatives of the auction house for elaborating on its description in public appearances , leading potential buyers to believe the necklace had a particular history . The estate is refusing to return the money on the grounds that Christie ’ s “ cancellation of the sale was objectively unreasonable .” In the meantime , the estate alleges that Christie ’ s is withholding proceeds from the sale of a $ 2.9million (£ 2.5million ) Bulgari ring until the money is returned .

Despite repeatedly encountering each other in legal matters , it is clear that neither Swatch nor Apple are the only ones acquainted with a day or two in court . Whether it is a trademark issue or the alleged breach of a contract , legal dramas seem to follow jewellery brands of all sizes . Judging by the as-yetunresolved status of Apple and Swatch ’ s latest dispute , it looks almost certain that we have not heard the last of it .